1. As the petitioners and the second respondent-the State of Kerala in all the above revision petitions are one and the same, though the contesting first respondent in the above cases are different, particularly the question of law and facts involved are identical, all the above Criminal Revision Petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all these revision petitions, the prayer is to set aside the orders passed by the trial court, dismissing the petitions filed by the revision petitioners to quash the respective complaint filed against them as not maintainable and to discharge the accused therein who are the revision petitioners.

3. Crl.R.P.No.1667 of 2012 is preferred against the order dated 26.6.2012 in CMP No.456 of 2012 in C.C.No.197 of 2006 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha. In the above case instituted upon the complaint preferred by the first respondent, the offence alleged against the revision petitioners/accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. In C.C.No.230 of 2006 against which Crl.R.P.No.1668 of 2012 is filed, no specific section of offence is raised. But, in Annexure C order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.898 of 2006 and in Annexure B discharge petition filed by the revision petitioners, their stand is that no offence under Section 120B,409 or 420 I.P.C. would be attracted, but according to the first respondent/complainant, offences under Section 409 and 34 are attracted against the revision petitioners. Crl.R.P.No.1669 of 2012 is also filed challenging the order dated 26.6.2012 in CMP No.493 of 2012 in C.C.No.240 of 2006 wherein the offences alleged against the revision petitioners are under Section 409 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Similarly in Crl.R.P.No.1670 of 2012 preferred against the order dated 26.6.2012 in CMP No.825 of 2012 in CC No.239/2006, the offence alleged against them is also under Section 409 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, on a close scrutiny of the allegations and contentions taken in the revision petitions and going by the documents produced along with the same, it can be seen that as per the proceedings of the court below, except in Crl.R.P.No.1667 of 2012, in all other connected cases covered by the revision petitions, cognizances were taken for the offences punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners whereas in Crl.R.P.No.1667 of 2012 related to C.C.No.197/06, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

4. Thus, in the calendar cases, against which Crl.R.P.Nos.1668, 1669 and 1670 of 2012 are filed, the allegations are similar in nature though the respondents/complainants are different persons and the offences alleged are under Section 409 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. whereas the offence alleged against the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.1667 of 2012 which is covered by C.C.No.197 of 2006, the offences alleged are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

5. Now let me consider the allegations against the revision petitioners, who are the accused in the respective calender cases. Hereinafter for convenience, the parties are referred to according to their positions in the complaint, which is produced as Annexure A in all the above revision petitions. According to the complainant, the first accused is a limited company having its registered and administrative office in Chennai, which is mainly doing banking business by accepting deposits, lending money and also engaged in hire purchase finance business, share brokering etc. and it is legally bound to follow the orders of the Reserve Bank of India and the first accused/company is having one of its branch at Alappuzha and the second accused is the Managing Director of the first accused/company whereas accused numbers 3 and 4 are its Directors and the fifth accused is the Branch Manager of the first accused/company, Alappuzha Branch.

A